later, senator james and half -- inhofe will be our guest. "washington journal" is next. [video clip] >> we can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger. host: president obama delivered his sports date of the union address in about an hour last night. -- his first state of been in address. he got interrupted more than 70 times by applause. it was the 222nd state of the union by a u.s. president. he spoke about gun laws, new spending on education, increasing the minimum wage, creating new private-sector-

public partnerships. there was a response from marco rubio and another from rand paul. we will get your reaction to all of this. 202-585-3882 for all others. reach us on twitter or facebook, or send us an e-mail. let's go through the headlines in the national papers this morning. pierce "usa toda -- here is "usa today" -- and then here is the "washington times" -- and the new york times --

the wall street journal -- the washington post -- we are getting your reaction this morning on the washington journal for the first hour. what did you think of the speech, the proposals, and the republican response as well? later on, a line of lawmakers for their reaction and to take your comments. our first phone call is joe in georgia, republican. caller: thank you. i love c-span, greta. it was the same old obama with more taxes and more government. marco rubio is incredible.

the key to our future is electing more people like him and tom graves and doug collins and tom price. we don't need this more government and taxes. we cannot afford it. rubio is great. he is a future president along with tom graves. host: >> you are frequent caller. every 30 days. respect that rule. what do you think about immigration reform and what senator rubio has put forward with a group of bipartisan senators? caller: its excellent. i think it will pass. the real problem is not immigration paris it is spending. we haver to cut itweubio was great. -- we have to cut spending. the real problem is not immigration but spending.

rubio is great. host: have you changed your mind on immigration reform? caller: not really. we just need people like rubio that have the work ethic. it is something we need to do. we have people like ted cruz and marco rubio, who are hispanic and i'd think they will get a lot of hispanic votes. illegal immigration is what we need to do. i think it will be done. i think we will elect a republican president in four years. host:don is a democratic caller in kansas. caller: i think president obama's speech was sparked on -- spot on. he held true to his campaign promises, like what he said about education and minimum- wage. i always thought if a person had a job, their jobs should be able to sustain them and they should

be able to live. we are the greatest country and we should not have people that when they were more than one job sometimes still living below the poverty level in this country. what president obama has proposed is great and for the preservation of democracy. in regard to marco rubio, pretty much more the same. it is the same republican line of trying to demagogue the democrats with all they want is more big government and more spending. we are born to have to spend some money to turn this thing around. you don't hear the republicans complaining about the money that we are giving to big corporations and sustaining them when they really don't need it. host: 20 said about education -- you

liked what he said about education. caller: he has a plan where it will start from preschool to high school. he talked about how germany has a program -- we do have some of these programs in our country where kids in high school actually come out of high school with the equivalent of an associate's degree. we need to put more money into preschool, because preparation is everything. and studies have proven when you prepare kids and give them a decent preschool education, they will flourish through the rest of their years and early childhood education. host: don liked the idea of providing free preschool to children from low and moderate- income families. he also mentioned the minimum

wage. here is president obama on raising the minimum wage to nine dollars. [video clip] >> tonight let's declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. [cheers and applause] we should be able to get that done. this single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. it could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank. rent or eviction. scraping by or getting ahead. for businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. and a whole lot of folks out there would need less help from government. working folks should not have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up when ceo

pay has never been higher. here's an idea governor romney and i agreed on last year. let's tie the minimum wage to the cost of living so it finally becomes a wage that you can live on. host: president obama talked about sequestration, and the automatic spending cuts that will go into effect march 1. "usa today" says -- john on twitter -- kevin in for lauderdale, florida, independent. caller: i agree with president obama on education.

i am an educator on my way to a class right now. host: what do you teach? caller: special-education. what obama said and what marco rubio said it affects me personally especially minimum- wage. what i include summertime's that i have to save a way for unlike a chipmunk, i barely knew make about $11 an hour. i put in about 60 hours to 80 hours per week. host: so you make more than minimum wage? caller: not really, when i include my overtime, i make about $5 an hour, because i'm required to take care of all types of paperwork. president obama gave a great speech. i take it with a grain of salt. it is the party line.

it's his vision. i have to take exception with marco rubio. until now i had a certain level of respect for him. he said he still lives in the same neighborhood he grew up in. i apologize to anybody takes the wrong way, but i have to call him a liar. he put it up for sale and is moving to d.c., but still says he's the senator of florida. host: where did you see that? caller: it's in the newspaper here in fort lauderdale. he has moved up to washington because he wants to be close to there. that is somebody who is putting non-partisan cooperation aside for an image. i'm tired of the politicians. i have no party affiliation. the republicans, even though there are a lot of good things about them, things they stand

for, but they like to touch on one or two years and make it out to be that everything is a failure, like solyndra. the democrats are showing no backbone by calling them out onyx. it is the american people being pulled into a tug of war. -- the the democrats are turning around and showing no backbone by calling them out on it. the tea party candidates are all just looking for an office. i'm the one suffering. my children car suffering. my students are suffering. host: the miami herald in florida --

here is a little of what the senator had to say. [video clip] >> mr. president, i don't want to oppose your plan because i want to protect the rich. i want to protect my neighbors, hard-working middle-class americans who don't need for us to have a plan to grow the government. they need a plan to grow the middle class. economic growth is the best way to help the middle class. our economy shrank during the last three months of 2012. if we can get the economy to grow at 4% per year, it would create middle-class jobs and would reduce our deficit by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. tax increases cannot do this. raising taxes will not create private-sector jobs. the tax increase could raise our deficit. i hope the president will abandon his obsession to raise taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our

economy. host: the washington post front page -- on manufacturing and the government private-sector partnerships, here's what the president said. [video clip] >> our first priority is making america a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. after shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added 500,000 jobs over the past three. caterpillar, bringing jobs back from japan. ford bringing jobs back from mexico. this year, apple will start making macs in america again. [applause] there are things we can do right now to accelerate this trend. last year we created our first

manufacturing innovation institute in youngstown, ohio. a once shuttered warehouse is now a state of the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3d printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. there's no reason this cannot happen in other towns. tonight i am announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs where businesses will partner with the department of defense and energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs. i asked this congress to help create a network of 15 of these hubs and guarantee the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in america. we can get that done. host: president obama in his speech last night. we are posting your comments on facebook.

if you want to post,, go to el facebook -- if you want to post your comments, go to facebook. tim ryan represents the youngstown area, a former manufacturing hub in that state and one that has been hit hard by recession. dakota, salem, oregon, republican. caller: good morning. as a college student very interested in economics, because that is what is helping me to fund my education, i like the policy initiatives that the president laid out in his speech, but that only goes so

far. i think the president should do so much more in not doing just lip service. he can talk the talk, but he has to be willing to sit down with the legislators to actually do that. he needs to sit with those actually willing to listen, like stephen. before he and retired, he was strongly opinionated on economic policy. this is a tough battle, especially for college kids like myself. i am watching washington, because when they are bickering, they are throwing away my possible career choices. host: one of the papers said that his call for raising the minimum wage was directed at young people like yourself. did you find that part of the speech -- what was your reaction? caller: i applauded him, because

i had trouble finding employment. i find that he is starting to listen. that much is clear. but it is difficult for me to say, but i applaud the president and look forward to seeing if this policy initiative goes forward. host: you are looking for jobs to help you pay for college and are having difficulty? caller: yes. host: you cannot find a minimum wage job? caller: jobs in my city are very hard to come by unless you know exactly where to look. i have three scholarships. i'm trying to get a job on campus to help pay my debt. jobs are in very high demand. it is difficult. i am trying. hopefully, with the president's new policies, this could be more of an easy process.

host: what is the minimum wage in oregon? caller: it was recently raised by our governor to $8.95. i cannot be certain about that. i've only read one article. host: i know there are websites out there that look at the minimum wage across the states. here's the new york times --

different economic arguments for minimum-wage, something that surely will be debated in the days after last night's state of the union address. on twitter -- let's go to brian in maryland, democrat. caller: good morning. president obama's speech was refreshing. as a proud member of the u.s. armed services that served our country more than 20 years, but we are focusing on domestic agendas and trying to invest money right here in the united. united so that was very refreshing to hear him talk

about education and investing in infrastructure. i do believe, however, if we get the unions out of the way as far as education, that is what will prove to be more fruitful. on immigration reform, this is probably the most opportune time to get some comprehensive immigration reform pushed into law. i do agree that there will be a lot of bipartisan agreement on the pathway to citizenship, although i believe there will be a lot of debate on how to secure the border. marco rubio proved that he was not ready for prime time. although his speech had substance, and proved he was not ready for primetime. he seemed very disheveled, very nervous. he seemed like he was not prepared.

everything just came out at the most inopportune time when you're faced with addressing millions and millions of individuals. if that is the republican counter to any type of upcoming presidential race democrat, they have a lot of work to do. host: here is the president last night on immigration. [video clip] >> our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants. [applause] right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform. now's the time to do it. now's the time to get it done. real reform means strong border security. we can build on the progress my administration has already made, putting more boots on the southern borders than at any

time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to the lowest levels in 40 years. real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship which includes passing a background check, paying taxes, and a meaningful penalty, learning english, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally. [applause] and real reform means fixing and the legal immigration system, to cut waiting periods and attract the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy. in other words, we know what needs to be done. as we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill and i applaud their efforts. let's get this done. send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months and i will sign it right away and america will

be better for it. let's get it done. host: on twitter -- susan page's story in usa today -- looking at a year to push through president obama's proposals. education spending,

manufacturing, immigration. he talked about foreign policy issues as well. here's the new york times with a little history about the state of the union addresses. ronald in kentucky, independent. what are your thoughts on the state of the union? caller: i liked what he set about raising the minimum wage and immigration reform and some of the others things. i am a little frustrated with congress and why they cannot get

their act together and work together to get things done. host: what would you like to see them get done? caller: i would like to see them get things done, not taking so long to get the budget under control. instead of all this talk about cutting benefits, cutting things there. i never heard nobody mentioned nothing about so much money the u.s. is sending overseas to these other countries. out others, helping doing my part. but before you start cutting people that have worked all their lives to support the united states, start looking overseas and seeing where you are sending the money. host: budget experts have said the foreign aid makes up less than -- it's not even double digits of our budget.

but medicare, social security, those are the big drivers. are you willing to put that on the table? caller: not medicare. the americans that of worked all their lives and have paid in all this time, they have earned that. it is their money. they have paid into it. no. i have seen too many senior citizens out there on the street suffering from having to choose between medicine or pay their rent or other things that should not be here in america. american citizens out there having to do that, to choose between medicine or pay their other bills, it's not right. working 60 or 70 years to support. the united support host: what do you do and how old are you? caller: i am 52. 21 years in the military.

i am a retired veteran. host: how are you living right now, of your retirement from the military? caller: retirement pay. plus i do some work around here at a minimum wage, $7.25 an hour. even though i am not suffering tremendously or nothing like that, i am surviving by the grace of the good lord. i still sit back and see others having to work if three different jobs at minimum wage just to get by. host: charles in arkansas, republican. caller: good morning. for all the people that like minimum-wage, you might want to start reading walter williams and thomas sole. it does not work. all it does is keep teenagers

from getting a job. the companies and the stores cannot afford this. who is going to pay it? if you like $9, why not $20? who is going to pay the difference between the minimum wage now and then at $9? it will be the people that buy commodities. the minimum wage will. be will consequently, it does not work in the long run. host: in other news, here's the new york times -

we have covered many issues about the threat of cybersecurity. go to our website, c-span.org. votedenate overwhelmingly to expand domestic violence act. that now moves over to the house. also in the senate yesterday, the senate armed services committee held a vote on the confirmation of defense secretary chuck hagel, and a,14- 11, split along party lines. the nomination went to the floor and is expected to get a vote on the senate floor on thursday. we will be watching that to see who votes yes or no. in the baltimore sun --

all sell today, jack lew, president obama's nominee to be treasury secretary, he will have his confirmation hearing. we will cover that live here on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. with live coverage of the confirmation hearing for him to become treasury secretary. we will cover that on c-span3. back to your phone calls about the state of the union address. stephen in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democrat. caller: hello. i but it was a good speech and it contained a lot of progressive ideas that i agree with. what bothered me is we need more revenue, i agree.

[indiscernible] a family member o a republican came home from germany and built the autobahn. the mayor of atlanta said one time we have the eisenhower administration, the highest margin of take-home taxes, and lowered to 71. 91%. not asking for 91% was the tax rate in the 1950's. we took care of veterans. we took care of wounded heroes, not charities. they. it. -- they deserve it.

driving on the highways, it's long drives. it's time to get moving again. host: our next caller is will, an independent from pittsburg. caller: thanks for taking my call. i thought it was a good speech. however, i am disappointed that it seems like the same old thing from the past state of the union speeches. i voted for the president. i am a big supporter of his, however, i am seeing a lot of talk and non-action. the gentleman was speaking about the minimum wage. it will drive costs up even farther, as it always has. businesses will not hire. or those that do, they will be limited in the amount of hours they get, which does -- i think that was a false hope.

gun control, the things they want to enact in that will do nothing but cause problems for the license owners and the people that are responsible, doing what they are supposed to do to try to protect themselves and their families. host: we will show our viewers what the president had to say. first, on twitter -- as we told you, senator rand paul from kentucky gave a response as well, in addition to marco rubio's response to the state of the union. fears a little from senator paul. [video clip] >> we have a party that and here's to the constitution. so we will not let the liberals tread on the second amendment. we will fight to defend the entire bill of rights from the right to trial by jury to the right to be free from an unlawful search. we will stand up against excessive government hour or wherever we see it. we cannot and will not allow

any president to act as if he were aching. we will not let any president to use executive order to attend on the second amendment. -- we will not allow any president to act as if he were kinig. and no one jailed without. when the executive branch and legislative branch are combined, there can be no liberty. separation of powers is a bedrock principle of our constitution. we took the president to court over his unconstitutional recess appointments and won. if necessary, we will take him to court again if the attempt to legislate by executive order. congress must reassert its authority as a protector of these rights. stand up for them in a matter which party is in power, whether it is a republican or democrat. i will oppose abuses of power by the executive. congress must stand as a check to the power of the executive and it must stand, as it was

intended, as the voice of the people. host: rand paul on the principles of the tea party and what they will stand up for, talking about the president taking executive action. the president today will travel to and asheville, north carolina, to lay out what he had to say last night on manufacturing. he will be at a factory. that's around 11:30. we expect his remarks around noon eastern time. look for our coverage of that on c-span.org. marty in michigan, republican. what's your reaction to the state of the union? caller: i am republican. i am extremely conservative. i must say, it is just a bunch of nonsense. i go off the u.s. debt clock. i asked people, we are smarter

than this. these two parties are completely out of control. the u.s. national debt, $16.50 trillion. the u.s. federal tax revenue, $2.480 trillion. the u.s. total debt, . $58, medicare, liability, $85 billion. social security liability, $16 billion. that's over $1 trillion combined. unfunded liabilities, $122 trillion. liability per taxpayer, 1 million, -- over $1 million.

i have a daughter that's 10 years old. her liability, the debt and that my little daughter is in and 10 years old caused by two parties as to stop. yes, i'm a republican. but it is rhetoric, nonsense. none of these politicians go to the store to buy food to see prices are going up. gasoline is out of control. host: mary in minnesota, democrat. caller: i think what spoke loudest for me, during the president's speech last night, was john boehner's demeanor. he is the head of the republicans. they are the party of no. he had "no" written all over his face. i never saw such a discouraging look.

i thought the president's speech was wonderful and motivating. i don't think raising the minimum wage will have that big an effect on anything or many people. earning $9 an hour, there are not many people earning that. as far as rubio, i lived in florida 28 years, i would not vote for him for anything. of course i am a democrat. but the republicans down there are pro-business. claire doan do anything for the people. that is what i see him doing as a republican. -- the republicans don't do anything for the people. host: what's your reaction to --s wetweet caller: myself, like most

average americans, we don't have the knowledge to know. i think we just judge on past performance. we see what the republicans did administration. i put my trust in the democrats, because i feel absolutely sure that the republicans are not going to do anything to improve our economy or do anything for the average person in this country. host: an e-mail -- overseas, the president addressed foreign-policy issues, talking about policy towards north korea and iran. [video clip] >> the regime in north korea must know they will only achieve security and prosperity by

meeting their international obligations. provocations of the sort we saw last night will only further isolate them as we stand by our allies, strengthen our missile defense, and lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats. likewise, the leaders of iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations. we will do what is necessary to prevent parents from getting a nuclear weapon. host: the papers this morning full of headlines about north korea. here's the financial times --

the financial times editorial page -- news analysis in "usa today" -- doug on what's happening in north korea. what happened in no-compete period and on iran -- and on iran --

there's a lot in the papers today about north korea, iran, and the president talking about nuclear programs last night in his state of the union address. nathaniel, buffalo, new york, independent. what was your reaction to the speech last night? caller: my reaction, wow. it is almost like you have to go to a school of bureaucracy to become a senator instead of being a voted-in senator from the people to speak on behalf of the people. to go back to the caller marty, that is a person speaking for

the people. that is common sense economics. he broken-down. yesterday, comcast purchased ge stock and nbc for $16 billion. so there is finding out there and ways to get this economy back on track. i see a lot of people on the ground level that don't have a clue as to what's going on in washington or in albany. enough of the rhetoric. enough of the across the aisle mudslinging. we need these guys to get to work, care about what they say. if they care about their constituents, they would go out there and what those areas they represent and then go back to the senate and say exactly what these people are saying. no one is saying and what the constituents actually want, on either side of the aisle. they want jobs. nobody's talking about just giving away $9 an hour and just

figure it out. they're talking about a standard of living. people feel they deserve more than what mcdonald's pays. you cannot sustain a family on that. host: the wall street journal breaks down the number of times president obama use certain words. santa "washington times" has -- the washington post says -- more republican reaction to the

state of the union address. --re's "usa today" neal in new york, republican. caller: good morning. i have something to say about the president's speech. the carefully leaves out a lot of information. when i was a kid i worked at supermarkets, i worked at a doughnut stores, i work for minimum wage. it was not a way to make a living or to raise money to go to college. it was a way to learn how to go work every day. it was a way to learn how to work for big company and work with other people.

the minimum wage was not designed for people to raise children on. it was not so people would that work nine jobs to have a house. it's ridiculous. if the government wants to raise minimum wage, it would be to collect more taxes. additionally, raising the minimum wage appears to give adults a way to work rather than bringing entry-level jobs to kids coming out of high school or in high school,. minimum wage is not enough money and never will be to actually have a family and send kids to college. why promote that? we want to send kids to college so they can have a real job and not minimum-wage. if it's a way to bring in the 11 million or 12 million immigrants into the fold so they can pay taxes, just say so. stop lying to the public. host: on immigration reform, "usa today" --

others that attended the speech in the first lady's box were americans that were victims of gun violence. one from chicago. we will show you what the president had to say about gun violence, coming up in a little bit. also, the gop, one member of congress invited ted nugent to attend a state of the union address.

that was steve stockman, a republican from texas. there's a picture of said nugent with arms folded, seemed unimpressed by what the president said. the texas congressman invited him to attend the state of the union address. also, speaker boehner had guests. here's a picture of him conversing with his guests. fourth graders at st. anthony's catholic school in his district. next to that is an opinion poll on immigration reform. 50% of republican support the comprehensive approach. the 48% support a deportation- only approach. president obama talked about gun violence in his speech last night.

one of the emotional moments of the speech. [video clip] >> one of those we lost was a young girl named nadia pendleton. she was 15 years old. she loved fig newtons. she was a majorette. she was so good to her friends. they all thought they were her best friend. just three weeks ago she was here in washington with her classmates performing for her country at my inauguration. a week later, she was shot and killed in a chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house. her parents nate and cleo are in this chamber tonight along with more than two americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. they deserve a vote.

[applause] they deserve a vote. [applause] day deserve a vote -- they deserve a vote. gabby giffords deserves a vote. the families of newtown deserve a vote. the families of aurora deserve a vote. the families of oak creek and tucson and blacksburg can countless other communities ripped open by gun violence, they deserve a simple vote. -- and countless other communities. host: the nra released a video during his speech. [video clip] >> president obama gives a good

speech. when you listen to him talk about new gun laws, you may think he sounds reasonable. what happens when you look at the details behind the president's policies? let's look at what obama's experts have to say. this internal justice department memo says "and assault weapons ban is not likely to have an unlesson gun violence, it comes from something else." is experts say a gun ban like the one being debated now in congress will not work without mandatory gun buybacks. that is government confiscation of illegal firearms owned by honest citizens. what about obama's call for universal background checks? his own experts wrote that the effectiveness of universal background checks depends on "requiring gun registration." the federal

government. that is an illegal abuse of privacy and freedom unprecedented in our history. host: the nra released that video during president obama's stated the union address. we're getting your reaction to his fourth address, the first of his second term. riverdale, maryland, democratic caller. help me with your name. fidey? caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. i'm happy about the immigration reform, but i have a little concerned. i would like the republicans and democrats to work something out. some illegals have been in this country over 20 years. they go to high school and then cannot go to college because their parents cannot afford to pay for their college. the children cannot have

financial aid to go to college. so these children and their parents are undergoing a lot of things. if they decide to work at mcdonald's or do this or that -- [indiscernible]. these are brothers and sisters and are undergoing a lot of problems with host: their families on twitte. calvin in d.c., independent calle. caller: i thought it was a powerful speech. i would like to address the cuts

everybody keeps talking about. we have mandatory and discretionary spending. mandatory are the promises that we make. discretionary is the choices we make. more than half of our discretionary spending is defense. defense has tripled since clinton. the defense budget was $350 billion under clinton. when obama came in, over $1 trillion. now, $700 billion. a 30% cut mainly because of pulling out of iraq. we will be down to a record budget in defense of the 500 mark the billion dollars when we get out of afghanistan. why are we maintain a core budget of $550 billion when it was $350 million -- billion? we need to stop breaking promises to the poor and the elderly. host: marco rubio spoke about

guns and medicare during his response. [video clip] >> the president loved to blame the debt on president bush, but president obama created more debt in four years than his predecessor did in eight years. the real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending $1 trillion more than it takes in every year. that's why we need a balanced budget amendment. the biggest obstacle to balance the budget, programs for spending already locked in. one of these programs as medicare, which is important to me. it provided my father. needed to battle cancer and ultimately to die with dignity. it pays for the care of my mother right now. i would never support any changes to medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother and. but anyone who's in favor of leaving medicare exactly the way it is right now is in favor of bankrupting it. republicans of offered a detailed plan that helps save

medicare without hurting retirees. instead of playing politics, when is the president's going to offer his detailed plan to save medicare? tonight would have been a good start. we face other challenges as well. we were heartbroken by the recent tragedy in connecticut. we must effectively deal with a rise of violence in our country. but the unconstitutionally undermining the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans is not the way. host: that was marco rubio in his response to the state of the union address. coming up in a few minutes, we will be talking to members of congress from both parties. here's a tweet from one of our producers -- " we will also speak with senator inhofe, a republican from oklahoma. mia in louisville, kentucky, democrat.

caller: my reaction is obama, god bless him, because raising the minimum wage to $9, he will make a whole lot of people go out and get jobs. obama is doing the best pecan and, after bush left. -- obama is doing the best that he can. i don't know why they are acting like that? he needs to do what he can so people can get jobs and get their money back, get the tax is straight. host: josh is on the line. caller: i watched your coverage

on sequestration and watched the state of the union address. the tone is so much different, then when he talked with the generals about sequestration. they were apologetic and embarrassed about being put in the situation in congress and put in the forefront. when you see the state of the union, you don't hear much talk about the harm sequestration will do. and utilities for the american public to recoil against defense and say what does defense do for everyday americans, when you look at what happens in benghazi and syria and north korea and afghanistan. defense can never be understated. i think the american public does not focus on that much. host: what did you make of what the president had to say about afghanistan and removing the troops, reducing troop levels at a quicker pace? caller: i think it was a good

political move. that's where the politics have taken us. it was a lost opportunity of strengthening he could have done in the region. for china, iran, and russia and pakistan, we need more allies in that region and not to isolate ourselves. to leave afghanistan too quickly will put them in the arms of other countries. we would miss an opportunity to grow a real partnership over there. i definitely think maybe that's not military, maybe state department stuff instead. [indiscernible] i feel like cutting banks' stock will limit our ability to have that impact. when we talk about the american economy and american workers and values, it's good for us to be good to other places and that helps us here at home too.

[indiscernible] it affects us in an indirect way, maybe not as much as social security and medicare. sequestration has really gotten people up in arms. i was looking for more of him to talk about that or how he was going to reduce the deficit host: we will talk about all the issues that president obama laid out in the state of the union address including the responses by the republicans. lawmakers will join us on the show. our boast is -- our first is keith ellison, cochairman of the progressive caucus. first, more on president obama's state of the union address. cspanw

get rid of taxuld loopholes for the well-off and well-connected. why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and medicare just to protect special interest tax birds? -- tax breaks question mark how is that fair? why isn't -- if deficit reduction was a big emergency, but it does not close loopholes. how does that promote growth? now is our best chance for bipartisan comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. we can get this done.

the american people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses expanding and hiring. the tax code that ensures billionaires with accountants cannot pay a lower rate than their hard-working terrorists, that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas and -- heard walk secretaries that lowers intensivecentives. host: let us begin with what we heard from the president about tax reform. he called for that in his last state of the address. it has not happened yet. do something that gets done? guest: that is determined by the effort and organization that we

put into it. i was very happy with the president displaying a vision and talking about the need for fairness in our tax cold and growth -- tax coade and growth. the alternatives to not setting the bar high is to end -- you will not get very much debt. host: on sequestration, the president talked about there has to be cuts to entitlements as well as new revenues. do you think that that happens? are democrats willing to agree to cuts on entitlements? guest: i do not understand the ents."entitlem

these are things that people pay into. these folks are already [indiscernible]there are things we can do to make sure we are hold accountable. we need to do away from the secret service model to the outcome model. that will begin the process of lowering costs . the problem is not medicare or medicaid. the problem is healthcare costs. that was another encouraging sign.

we have seen some of the slowest growth in health-care costs after he passed obamacare, which i voted for. there are other things we can do. we should introduce competitive bidding for the stretch and drugs benefits. we to remove the cap on social security. social security, when you add up the money that it gets in, it is noncontributing to the deficit. all of this discussion about how we have to cut social security -- i do not know if that is what we should focus on. let us cut loopholes. host: on gun control, the president said the proposals deserve a vote. as chief deputy, you helped get the vote. are there on the democrats to vote for an assault weapons ban?

or universal background checks? guest: you need to try it. as hard as life has been for many of the victims that were in the gallery last night, and i am thankful that the president mentioned them. how can we not try? on the assault weapons ban, it will be a heavier lift. our muscles are big enough to do it. it should be easy to ban these high-capacity magazines and have universal ground checks. we should be able to do that. that is something that should be done. it deserves a vote. there is no reason to oppose those things. on the assault weapons ban, maybe a heavier lift, but if we try and keep that legislation specific enough and listen to all sites, i think that we can remove these weapons of warfare from our streets. it is only rational to do so.

host: new jersey, independent caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. about the gun control, here is my problem. i am young. i live in an urban area. as most people know, it is not the registered weapons that we are should be worried about. if you put a limitation on magazine sized, you remove dangerous records from the street. in these areas that are problematic that this young lady died in chicago, it was not these weapons. i know for a fact that there are people on the streets that sell weapons that are not registered that are not gun shop owners.

you are trying to put a band- aid on a situation where you need stitches. as far as our president is concerned, i wonder where this legislation is actually going to -- how this legislation will solve that problem. that is the biggest problem. guest: the point you are making is that you cannot solve the whole problem by one or two things. the implication of your point is, do not do anything. i cannot embrace that as the right point of view. the bottom line is, 40% of our gun sales are not rule a licensed gun dealer where there is registration or a background check. that is a huge loophole. once we close those, as you know, you are from an urban area. a lot of these guns are stolen. a lot of them are bought by straw purchases. people have a clean background and sell them on the street. we can close that up as well. we do need more enforcement.

we have not had that in the atf leader in six years, who has been acting. there are a number of things we can do. i agree with one of your points. one of -- none of the small pieces. the problem. we need comprehensive gun safety. i remain committed to the rights to own a gun. i am not against the right. i own a gun. i am not going to be the one to advocate for confiscation. when the nra says they will take your guns, a are lying. we need basic safety measures so we can have -- we can avoid another sandy hook. host: new jersey, democratic caller. caller: caller: our

constitution was unique when it was written. our constitution in many ways is outdated. there are something like 21 alterations to that. nobody has ever alter the second amendment. it was written at a time when there were 13 independent colonies, each of which had to have an state militia. for them agree to come together in a union, certain alterations had to be made to get them to come in. there were native americans and cowboys and indians out there and firearms were necessary for protection. all of that stuff is not pertinent in this day and age. let us him and the second amendment.

-- let us him and the second amendment. that was suppressing a one-shot downloaded musket. it was not defending a multiple shot assault weapon. but us get real and get some real legislation. it has to make sense. i am a dr.. our country has the highest rate of per capita expenditures. a good part of that is due to gunshot wounds. you get a bullet through somebody's back that makes him a quadriplegic. that raises our total cost of medicine beyond the stratosphere. we have to get rid of guns. host: what is a reasonable legislation? caller: assault weapons and multiple-shot magazines, etc. should not be available to the public. every gun that is on the street should be registered.

you should have to -- you need legislation that allows policemen or some authority to do a search down if there is thought that they are carrying an illegal gun. guest: i do not know if we need to amend the to tuition -- the constitution. the way the second amendment has rued country and -- contruest allows for congress to implement safety. howard has an accurate analysis. i am glad he introduced this element that we do not always talk about, which is how expensive gunshot wounds are to our healthcare system. host: keith ellison, cochairman of the progressive caucus on

capitol hill and a member of the financial services committee. we continued talking about and getting your reaction to the present state of the union address. illinois, republican caller. calm -- caller: i am a disappointed republican. the republican party is not my father possibly publican party. i am sick -- every time i hear about the constitution, they are dinosaurs. my comment is about marco rubio. i cannot believe he got a drink of water. i am so embarrassed to be a republican. it is not a republican party. gets a drink of water while giving a speech? i am embarrassed as a republican because no one stood up when the democrats stood up.

i get upset. i am not a tea party er. one of my tea party friends asked me -- i am disappointed with john haydee. he said we need more answers. john hagee is not a minister. it sounds like the crazy people. host: were you able to watch or hear coverage of marco rubio possibly saw us? guest: i did a bunch of interviews when he was making that ended -- presentation. i heard about the water thing. parties are seeking vehicles.

those vehicles do not work for us anymore. it is ok to switch. we would love to have you in the democratic argue. i offer you an invitation. host: florida, independent caller. caller: i am an independent and liberal. i appreciate what the last republican caller said. the democratic party is no longer the people's party. there are very few true conservatives in the republican party. ron paul was one of them. - the first question is about the federal budget. when you see that pie chart that is shown, our military pensions included in the expenditures? also planned to sign -- clandestine operations?

inflated costs of healthcare that a moral people have lobbied for increases the amount that reflects on that pie chart with regard to social security and medicare costs. medicaid cars would be lower if our health care was a reasonable expense. host: we have limited time. decode the answer to our military -- guest: the answer to our military pensions and the military expenditures is i think that they are, but i will have to get back to you on that. sometimes these things are accounted for in different ways.

i think it is there. i am not certain area. clandestine operations are not. they are in another budget. h zhang new jersey, -- h bank,-- caller: [indiscernible]i am a democrat. i voted for obama. about guns, i have been part of the nra since 1978. nowadays, [indiscernible]they told me yesterday when i called they that [indiscernible]

told me that legislation would confiscate guns from gun owners. they do not want to register handguns or guns. the legislation is [indiscernible]is that true? guest: the nra has been speaking against registration, background checks. the issue about this whole debate is that in 1968, there were background checks. now there are not. esther lapierre has been on both sides. they have conceded nothing. they are not agreeing to anything. their spokesperson, ted nugent,

was at the capital last night speaking for them. you are right. they are taking hard lines. host: who did you have at the speech last night? guest: i had a young man named sammy. he is a 17-year-old who is a loving son. his father came to america with an american dream. he started a business in my district. a disgruntled employee with mental health problems shot five people. them.s dad was one of sammy was on a bus going to madison, wisconsin to check out the college. he is a high school senior. he got a text that there was a shooting in the neighborhood where the business was. he text his dad to tell him to

be careful. that tax was never answered. sammy has been speaking out. he has been giving a lot of interviews. he has been working with bans against illegal guns. he has been passionate. he is channeling his grief to better the lives of other people and prevent anyone else from suffering right he and his family. host: this was coordinated with your office and the mayors against illegal guns. they did this with several democratic members. they have lawmakers brained people who have been victims of gun violence. guest: the idea started with several of us. the mayors group has been supportive here it we ended up with over two dozen guests and members from various parts of the country.

some of the people invited for young, some were old, some from urban, some from rural areas, some black, some white. some were individuals. everybody was united in the fact that they were grieving and they were dedicated to making sure that we get sensible rolls around gun safety. no one is saying you do not have a right to earn a gun. there should be common sense rules around gun safety. host: from twitter -- guest: know one thing will solve the whole problem when people think they are coming up with some awesome ideas where

they say if we do this one thing, that will solve everything. that is not impressive. what we are trying to do is put forth a set of things that we think will overall amount to saving lives. for example, allowing the center for disease control to study gunshot totality's will solve some of the problem. we will know more about it. having background checks on unsolved all of the problems. it will solve some. getting rid of the high- capacity magazines will solve some of the problems. without the high-capacity clips, the damage inflicted in tucson or in aurora or sandy hook could not have been achieved. there may be some other shooting incidents where that may not have made a difference. what do something. it's not act as if there is some sort of panacea war one-size-

fits-all solution to gun violence. there are a number of things that need to be done. we need gun owners and moms and young at the kids and senior citizens and law enforcement and medical folks to come up with a safer america. we have more gunshot killings than any other country by far. we have not talked about suicides, which is more than the other kind of gunshot the --theast -- totality's fatalities. we need a comprehensive approach. host: pennsylvania, republican caller. caller: the obvious would be search and risks -- risfrisks. that wicked again limbers -- that wicked gang members who

have a legal firearms. that would take the brunt of gun crime away. the second would be strong practices. crackdown on them. you go to a hospital, with hospital it is not the gun. -- it is not the guns, it is the criminals. guest: the agenda is not to go after the guns. i am a gun owner. i do not fill my right to own a gun is in danger. i have to be a responsible owner. i have to lock it up. i have to make it difficult for anyone to steal it or misuse it. i do not think the agenda is taking guns away. it is safety.

20 first graders were shot between three and 11 times. two children and teachers were killed. can the folks -- can we focus on that for a minute? the loss of life. take her out how we can handle the right to own a gun and save our neighbors. we are not talking about taking guns away. the caller is thinking about things that could have been, changes that could be made as we preserve the right to gun ownership. i commend him for that. some agree to no changes. to hear a conservative say, there are things he is open to look at. it is good. host: on immigration reform, it calls for legislation to come to .is deask and the next month

what does it look like? guest: i hope it starts with family unification. that is a problem. you mentioned we need to fix the system that is supposed to be working. years go by and people do not get citizenship. we need to make sure that we check the background. we have a lock on the border already. we have spent $18 billion on border security. we have done enough of that stuff erie it is time to reunify families and help businesses and workers come together so we can get the world's best talent. we need to make sure we put families first. host: indiana, democratic caller. ler: minimum wage should be

for people 20 and over who are healthy. if you have a disability, you cannot get a job. one place that i tried working, she said i did a good job but i was slow and she cannot afford to pay me minimum wage. she did not hire me. i would rather work for five dollars per hour then not at all. guest: everybody wants a job. i come into the caller. the caller wants to work. she wants to make a contribution to her community. i appreciate that. the minimum wage -- the economists study this issue. businesses can afford it. if people will pay you less than minimum wage, they are paying you poverty wages you cannot

survive on. i was glad the president talked about raising the minimum wage. the president needs to move forward on the infrastructure. we need more jobs. we need more jobs. we need more work for people to do. we have a lot of people out of work even though the economy has been improving. there is a lot of work to be done. we have a crumbling infrastructure. a need to pay people fairly. host: businesses say in this economy, it is too much of a burden. " -- is mi"the new york times guest: i do not buy it.

this is something we need to continue to debate. a higher minimum wage would put money in the hands of ordinary citizens. they can spend it at local stores. if you spent at local stores, the store needs more people to accommodate the increased demand. they can hire more. the problem in our economy is working-class people do not have money. 7070% of our economy is driven by consumer -- 70% of our economy is driven by consumer demand. people need a decent wage. you are waking full-time making $14,000 per year. you cannot afford an apartment or food. that is a problem. we need to have people making a

better wage. we need -- the president made the point that there are trillions of dollars in capital waiting to pre e put into use. -- waiting to be put into use. businesses have been making record profits. not all of them. look at it overall. in the aggregate, they have been. why don't they use that to hire people? demand is weak because the average citizen does not have much discretionary income because wages are too low. the president is right. host: congressman keith ellison of minnesota. we will keep talking to members of congress from both sides of the aisle spirit republican tom cole from oklahoma is up next.

let me give you some state of the union fact. 1790-1934, it was known as the annual message. franklin roosevelt first use the term state of the union in 1934. opposing party response began in 1866. the longest address was 27,000 worlds by william taft. the shortage was a little over a thousand, george washington. the first radio broadcast was coolidge in 1923. the first television, truman in 1947. the first web broadcast was george w. bush in 2002. most word -- the most were given five roosevelt, 12.

president obama's was a little over 6000 words. he spoke for about an hour. he was interrupted by applause. we are getting your reaction this morning. we will keep taking your phone calls while we wait for congress and tom cole to join us. hostcaller: team from chicago -- being from chicago and seeking the parents there was good. -- seeing the parents there was good. there was a lot of talk about obama coming to the funeral or chicago to address the issue of violence in the city being that it is his hometown.

there have been about 560 murders here since the last year. 60 this year already. he is coming on friday. he had to go through a lot of flack. radio stations have called him out on it. it is good to see that when you raise your voice, it affects things. her parents were there. he addressed the situation. that was good. host: the president is traveling to chicago to talk about gun violence. he will travel to north carolina to talk about the ideas on manufacturing last night and the state of the union address. look for our coverage at www.c- span.org. tom cole from oklahoma joins us.

he sits on the budget committee. he is an appropriator. let us begin with what the president said about the automatic spending cuts that go into place march 1 unless a deal comes up. he said there has to be new revenue and calls for closing loopholes. do you agree? guest: the president has not put forward a plan. he had known this was coming for two years. the house plan -- passed legislation last year. the senate did not pick the bill up. the president has not put anything out. he was off on campaign trips. the president likes to talk about a balanced approach. he does not mention that we had a major tax increase. that was a result of the fiscal cliff. if we are going to have

balance, the sequestration cuts should be dealt with with alternate cuts redistributed or not with additional revenue. host: does that mean that sequestration happens? if so, are you concerned that jobs will be lost? guest: i am concerned that they will be lost. it is very likely to happen again. the house has acted twice on this here is the senate has not done anything yet. it appears to be rousing to action at the last minute. the president has not put forth a proposal. it is nice to talk about generalities about a balanced approach. i would like to know his specific proposals. our suspicion is that the president wants to our curve -- occur so it will be politically advantageous so he can negotiate in march. i would be more impressed if

this was an urgent crisis and the president would be here meeting at the white house to deal with it. he has not done that. it suggests he is not as concerned work serious about it as he should be. host: are you concerned that republicans may get the blame if sequestration happens? guest: i am more concerned about people living with uncertainty and worried about their job situations. we have twice acted. neither the senate nor the president have chosen to do that. we are willing to sit down with the president and renegotiate the cuts. across-the-board cuts are usually not good. we would like to see a lot of these cuts shifted from discretionary spend it into long-term entitlement reform. the president does not seem to be willing to discuss that issue. i worry about the mcat -- the impact of it. it will happen.

tax increases will happen. they are written in law. these cuts are written in law. this was advocated for by the president. the sequestration was his suggestion. he signed it. he has offered no meaningful proposal to avoid the cuts. they are likely to occur. host: he signed the budget control act. did you vote yes? does that make it your responsibility? guest: i did. all i can do is vote on the legislation. that is all the republican house conference can do. we have not seen registration to deal with sequestration out of the senate or the president. if this is as serious as he says, he should offer a specific proposal. you cannot call for a balanced

approach when you just had major tax increases, income tax and the end of the payroll tax cut holiday. 45 days later you call for something else. it is unrealistic. we should sit down and negotiate and redistribute the cuts. there are lots of ways to do this. we should enter into serious discussion on entitlements. host: your reaction to the minimum wage proposal put out by the president, raising it to $9 .00 per hour. guest: it is easy to spend other peoples money. it is not likely to happen. congress may look at it. and my state, that would hurt a lot of small businesses. it would cost you jobs. you encourage businesses to shut down a lot of entry-level jobs. that is what most minimum-wage jobs are. there are a small number of

adults that work there as a primary source of income. i am one to sit down and listen and look at the evidence. i am not persuaded it will produce jobs. host: the white house site or resource -- cited research showing no detectable employment losses from the kind of minimum-wage increases we have seen in the united states. guest: if those companies want to raise wages, they can. they should if they think that is a good idea. i would encourage to -- i would encourage them to act on their own. if the president wants to

propose that, this is the first i have heard of him. the more serious problems we have our deficits and debt and government spending. that is what the presidential should -- that is what the president should focus on. i would be careful about encouraging anything that may cause jobs. job creation has been dismal ford -- for years. caller: i study history quite a bit. president obama is an eloquent speaker. his speech reminded me of what

happened after the treaty of first i -- versailles in germany. you have a program by adolf hitler where they both the autobahn. in more recent history, when england decided to register firearms and confiscate them. these are some things that bother me quite a bit about president obama and his platform. that bothers me very much. g: i agree with your basic points. the president has to work on government as a source job creation. and you take money out of the private sector, it slows the economy down. in terms of the gun issue, i

agree. i am concerned. the senate tends to be less partisan and more geographic. it depends on where you are from. i am from oklahoma. gun ownership is common. it is a gun owning culture. this is something that i am skeptical about. host: do you believe that these proposals deserve at least a vote? guest: i do. they sent us up here to vote. if you are a freight to vote, you are the wrong business. -- if you are afraid to vote, you in the wrong business. keith is a great guy. we disagree on almost every guy. he is thoughtful. he advances his position. he is fun to have a discussion with. he is not afraid to cast a vote. i am the same way.

i am not concerned about voting on issues. at is how you define yourself. host: georgia, democrat line. caller: i was very disappointed in the republican rebuttal. it always seems that the republican plan does not want to have any kind of rapport with the president. at the same time, i was disappointed -- concerned about this immigration reform. i was adopted. my father was merited in the air force. he was an american citizen.

he died before i could become a citizen. i am a permanent resident. it just seems like since 9/11, i am not able to do anything. i am not able to get any benefit anymore. anything that i need, especially since i have had a heart attack. i was concerned because they are always only talking about the border when there are so many borders that come into america a legally. at the same time, the permanent residents -- i have been here 15 years. it seems like they are making us as if we are illegal. guest: thank you for the call. you illustrate a lot of the complexity around the immigration issue. i am encouraged on that front.

the fact that we have full republican and democratic senators working together to lay down principles. there are serious efforts in the house. there are different aspects to it. that is -- there is a chance for progress. when the president was running in 2008, he said he would have a bill on the floor within a month. we still have not seen it. i am glad the legislative body is moving on the issue. there are places where we do cooperate with the president. i worked with him on the fiscal cliff crisis. i voted for the passage of the final deal, which was a compromise. i would worked with him on sandy relief. i am trying to work with him on violence against women. there are areas of cooperation. it will be sharp disagreements.

that is why we have elections. that is why we have debates and votes. it is a big country. there are a lot of different points of views. this is where we work things out. they might always be pretty or efficient. it has worked well for 230 or more years. we are in one of these phases where there is a lot of difference of opinion among the american people. it is our job to come up here and do the best job we can, find common ground. i will continue to work with the president. caller: if you talk to the average man on the street that is a working joe, he would like to see the loopholes closed. why can't we just passed that?

we need to understand what the law is. guest: legislation should be as simple as possible. there is wrought bipartisan agreement that we need to lower the tax rates and eliminate a lot of the loopholes. the troubles are, what are the loopholes? things like home mortgage deduction. that is a good loophole. people do not pay taxes on their health insurance provided by employers or the government. that is a tax loophole. getting -- giving money to a charitable cause. you are not taxed on that. a lot of loopholes cerp important -- serve important purposes. start listing off -- those are

the three largest loopholes. they are all pretty popular. it is more difficult than lines in a speech. we are working in the house ways and means committee hard to look at the tax system. we would like to have that discussion with the president. we can't find -- we can find common grounds. as long as you are keeping revenue neutral, that is good. we raised taxes 45 days ago. how many tax increases do you need in a year? host: what does president obama need to put on the table? what are things republicans want to see spending cuts on? guest: i will be specific. on medicare -- the president has put this on the table and has taken it off. gradually, you ought to link in the of medicare and social security.

slowly raise them. you have to reflect the fact that people are living longer. change the c.i.p. that would save a spread over a longer amount of time. that would save billions of dollars. you should look at some of these programs on means testing. there is no reason to think that warren buffett needs the same medicaid -- medicare benefit that some -- than someone who has a social security check and nothing else. those are pretty specific suggestions. medical liability reform. the real money, if we are moving toward trying to save these programs and make them stable, is on the entitlement side.

if we do nothing, medicare, medicaid, social security will go bankrupt. you have to make some changes. we put specific changes on the table on the ryan budget. we have not seen specific proposals from the president. at one point he was for changing c.i.p. he was for raising the age gradually and the 2011 discussions. he has pulled that back. if you are not serious about reforming the entitlement system, you are never going to balance the budget. host: are you willing to put on the table more defense cuts? guest: we are doing that in sequestration. it has been cut. we have cut defense spending in the last two years by almost a half $1 trillion.

-- a half a trillion dollars. there are 500 to 5000 soldiers in the us army. in five years, there will be 490,000. we have 61 fighter wings around the world and in the country. in five years, that will be down to the d4. we want it free hundred 13 congress vessels. -- we wanted to hundred 63 congress vessels. we will have less. when you are trying to get the balance, you are careful about making any part of the budget a sacred cow. you have to look at everything. we have not that on the nondiscretionary side. no reforms to medicaid, medicare, no loop and social security. we have taken a whack at defense before sequester. the president fences off parts

of the budget as being untouchable. republicans look at medicaid and medicare and the ryan budget. we post specific -- we offered specific the polls. he does not have to accept it. he should produce an alternative. that is the same for the u.s. senate. caller: the president likes to the american people. he said that the health care costs have come down, energy bills have come down. and south carolina, none of this has come down. we keep hearing about cutting entitlements. when are you all going to cut your port spending -- pork spending? guest: we have cut spending.

discretionary spending is $95 billion less than it was two years ago. we are spending $191 billion less. we will have additional cuts. we will like to distribute done differently. the this -- the sequester cuts will stand. there have been cost reductions. we could do better with a republican president and senate. we control one halfand 1/3 of the federal government. i was the election had gone differently. we will continue to fight to reduce spending. we have been successful on the discretionary side. hopefully, fiscal reality will force the president incident to put on the table entitlements.

on entitlement spending, that is the big driver of the dead. look at any budget pie chart, that is where most of the money is. medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps. banca programs. -- farm programs. the discretionary part of the budget has been shrinking for decades. in testament reform is where you will achieve -- entitlement reform is where you will ts.ieve balanced budge twitter -- wfrom guest: why do we go? we were attacked from afghanistan.

3000 americans were killed on american soil. that is a war the president has supported and expanded. most of the casualties and afghanistan have occurred on his watch. the idea that somehow the president has not been involved in afghanistan policy is fantasy. you can be critical of bush, but that was a policy that both parties supported overwhelmingly. in his first term, he expanded it. we had twice as many troops in afghanistan today. i do not question that. old president had a compelling national interest in making sure there was a government in

place and could secure this territory and make sure it did not happen again. it is expensive. a lot of service people have sacrificed for it. waged been a ward -- war in america. caller: i have a comment in question. i think the problem is that republican parties -- the republican party is working toward a keeping their ideology no matter who it -- gets hurt. they have publicly acknowledged this -- the first time obama -- they wanted to make sure obama would be a one term president. now that he won a second term, it is the same thing again. we want to make sure he does

not have a good legacy. host: -- guest: i have never made a statement like that. the caller when not accept all comments from a democrat. i have worked with the president on the fiscal cliff and violence against women and hurricane relief. the president has an excellent record. i have been proud of his record. politics is a contentious business. bush had a tough reelection. he had a difficult second term. democrats refused to work with him. i would like to take that contention out of american

politics. it is there. people hold different positions. at the end of the day, we get things done. there are serious debates. the system was designed to be tough to operate. madison would be proud. we have the difficulty of partisan divisions. we have a divided government on top of that. it is hard to line everything up. sometimes you can and get things done and the country can move on. caller: i read general dempsey 's presentation in front of the senate arms committee. it talks about being moral dilemma of the sequestration where it eventually

[indiscernible]we are ill- equipped. will you address the moral dilemma of sequestration? guest: my dad was a career military member. i have two of the largest motor installations and my district. -- military installations and our district. many members have been deployed repeatedly. i take that seriously. i used to sit on the house arms services committee. general dempsey is a great american. i met him when he was commander of the commission and backtrack in 2003. he has had a brilliant career.

i think he is being very honest with the american people. we can avoid this. we can do this much more logically. we do not have to cut the military in the way sequestration is set up. that is why republicans acted twice to pass legislation that would have protected the military for most of the cuts. the senate simply never put a bill on the floor. i think they're trying to rouse themselves to action. we've known this was coming for over two years. the president has not put a proposal of the board. sequestration was originally his proposal to put teeth of the budget. if you propose this particular solution and was accepted by all parties in good faith, you should put a specific plan of the table. the president is the commander in chief. he is not in the white house today calling republicans and democrats around the table.

he is in nashville, north carolina, campaigning. it is hard to know how serious he is witty does not have a specific plan himself and has not urged his party to do that. we have done that. why expect democrats to agree with our plan? no, but these proposed one of your own. so far the president has not done it. one last point, the president just got more the need of revenue to cover all of the sequestration cuts for the military. that is what occurred in the fiscal cliff deal. we're not talking about a balanced approach. there were no cuts in arid -- no cuts in in the area of government spending. i voted for it and work with the president on it. it seems to be is up to him to come up with a list of specific cuts. cuts this time. we of revenue last time. we will sit down and work this out going forward. you make an excellent point about the risk involved here. host: about that point from the

calller, oklahoma has several military bases in this state. the oklahoma commerce department says it provides more than 133,000 jobs. a group domestic product impact of 9.6 billion for the state and as much as 7% of the state's entire economy. if sequestration happens, what does that mean for the numbers? guest: ordinarily difficult. most of that is in my district. i know the numbers intimately. it is an enormous part of the economy. we are exceptionally proud to host the american military. there is enormous support for it in oklahoma. tinker force base has 15,000 workers. that does not mention there is a non-defense part of this. half of the cuts are coming

from discretionary programs. we have the national severe storm center at the university of oklahoma. we train at most of the flight control people in america and oklahoma city. believe me, i understand the economic consequences of what we're talking about. there are also economic consequences without dealing with the budget. the president has had four one trillion dollar deficit in a row. he is racked up more debt than george bush did, and more than any president in american history. it is time to get serious about dealing with that. we of its of progress in the past few years. it has been like pulling teeth. we got some revenue. asking you to deal with this part of the equation in a government that will spend over 44 trillion dollars in the next 10 years finding 1.2 trillion in spending cuts is not too much to

ask. the president has been reluctant to put a plant on the table. the same thing is true with our friends in the senate. they have are written a budget in four years. believe me, it might mean the democrats have been extraordinarily responsible in terms of taxing. host: senator from oklahoma. thank you very much for your time. coming up next, we will talk to marcy kaptur. she sits on the appropriations and budget committee in the house. first, a little bit more from president obama state of the union address last night where he talked about climate change. >> for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. it is true no single event makes a trend. the fact is the 12 hottest years on record of all, in the past

15. he waves, a drought wave -- heat waves, droughts, floods are more frequent and intense. we could choose to believe superstorm sandy of the most intense drought in decades in the most intense wildfire some states of ever see were all just a coincidence, or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it is too late. [applause] the good news is, we can make meaningful process on the issue while driving strong economic growth. if congress will not act soon to protect future generations, i will. i will direct --

[applause] i will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we could take now it did the future to reduce pollution, prepare communities for the process -- consequences of climate change in speed the transition to a more sustainable sources of energy. host: present all of his fourth state of the union address, the first of his second administration and the 222nd speech given by a president. we are getting your reaction here this morning. -- the president on his fourth state of the union address. he talked about new spending for education, as well as media fracturing jobs. in the opinion page of "usa today" says this --

we will talk about that coming up next with marcy kaptur, democrat from ohio. we are taking your phone calls throughout the morning and throughout the last hour. wean in ohio. democratic calller. go ahead. hong caller: what i am concerned about is we scented there to do the job. everyone is looking for the

little edge in the power struggle. no one wants to hear that. we need to get together and work together. would you please answer one question for me, i thought the constitution says the congress spends money. the president signs the bills that are set from congress. so the congress wants to control spending, why does tn't the control it among themselves instead of saying the president is spending money? host: let's get a response from marcy kaptur, democratic senator from ohio. that calller saying you control the purse strings, the spending. guest: the calller is correct. the president proposes and congress disposes. it is the responsibility of the congress to meet its constitutional obligations to

pass bills that relate to the various departments of the government, and to uphold the oath that we take to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to promote the general welfare of the country to establish justice, and if you think about what we do, normally that happens in several bills that congress will pass to fund the various departments of the government, starting with the feds. what has been happening over the past several years, there have been fits and starts where the committees are not functioning of the regular order. the gentleman is correct. the committees have not been meeting. they have not been passing bills under regular order in bringing them to the floor for a vote. the president brought forth one of the issues in a very broad- ranging address made in the area of gun violence.

he said give us a vote. give us a vote for the families of the galleries -- in the gallery that have lost loved ones. that was a reference to the fact that bills are being blocked, not allowed to proceed at a normal manner. host: republicans have said to avoid sequestration that the president needs to agree to more -- needs to agree to spending cuts. that they already agreed to spending cuts. the editorial we just read agrees that spending cuts, entitlement reform needs to be addressed not only for the deficit issues, but also to go through with president obama is big vision of immigration reform and other ideas he laid out yesterday. big is itnt obama's

of immigration reform and other ideas he laid out yesterday. guest: i think what the president laid out was a vision of repaigor. what i heard him lay out with respect to prescription drugs, there was a reference made in his remarks to try to operate the program more efficiently, dealing with the high cost of prescription drugs. asking if that will be legislation for competitive bidding for pharmaceuticals, which i support, so that we pay a competitive price, not an outrageous price for prescriptions across the various functions. that could save a lot of money. the president talked about hospitals and rewarding not the number of days for stays for a patient, but rather outcomes.

the same is true in education where he talked about a college scorecard, giving families and students at opportunity to grade outcomes and how well the institution is performing. i think the president wants to restore or rigor in the programs. for the federal government to use this to operate programs efficiently. i think we will see more details coming up with a full budget arrives. host: would you agree to raising the eligibility age from 65 to set the senate -- to 67 for medicare? guest: it a part of the country i come from, that is a non- starter. 70 people cannot even make it to 60. -- so many people cannot even make it to 60. plumbers and pipefitters

crawling up on the rigs. by the time they are 55-years- old, many of them are already infected heavily in the physical condition of the work they do. i would not support raising the medical coage, but i would support rewarding good outcomes, supporting care to lessen the cost of nursing-home care. there are ways that we can manage the budget in a more sensible way. host: here is a tweet who asks, what percentage of the government budget is a waste? what is your plan to eliminate the waste? guest: i think we need to function in a normal way. our chairman of kentucky wants to do that.

i think the ranking member from new york on our side of the aisle wants to do the same thing. the appropriations committee could do a lot of oversight. it has not been doing that. it has not been allowed to function in a normal way where bills are not succeeding in the past one at a time. we have 12 bills that must pass tremendous oversight function. we could do investigations get the waste out. we have to do our jobs. that has been very difficult with the bills passed by the leaders and pass down on the congress. you cannot run a country that way. you have to get into the details in every committee. on the defense committee we have a responsibility to provide the strongest defense for our country, and at the same time, eliminate waste. i know how much waste there is in the department of defense,

particularly in the new contracts. it is costing so much more to hire contractors, rather than inside the department. it takes meetings of the committees bigger is work. that has to be allowed to proceed. -- it takes meetings of the vigorous work. a vigorou caller: i question, in the private sector, obama care has caused employers to cut back part-time and benefits for employees. raising the minimum wage to $9 to -- would raising the middleweights to $9 put further strain on the private sector and eliminate jobs? guest: that is a great question. for small employers, the affordable care act exempts under 50 employees and gives

every american, including people you work with, an opportunity to access the plant from the exchange that is being set up so that for example if you are a business and you find you live in a region where maybe there is only one or two providers, it will offer you a broader range of plants to pick from that might be more affordable. the goal of the affordable care act is to open up choices for you and your colleagues. if one believes in the private market and competition in order to hold costs down, which i do, if you just do not get one organization controlling the market in the region, then it holds the great potential to reduce costs, provide you with better care and access to currently do not have. in terms of the minimum-wage, i am -- i was interested when the president said lit the minimum-

wage rise with the cost of living. let there be a relationship there. it is related to the health of the economy and not a downdraft on growth. host: portsmouth, arkansas. republicans call. caller: i am sorry. there is a delay. did you say a while ago that you did not support raising the retirement age? guest: i do not support raising the medicare eligibility age to 67, that is correct. caller: yes, because most people are broken down bed. the question i am asking -- host: we are listening. caller: my question is, how much money does the government give mayo clinic's or do they?

host: what are you getting at? caller: that would be some way to save money, because they do not accept medicare people. host: you are wondering how much money is given to providers and if that is a way to cut monday. guest: i do not think i understand the question. is he referring to is the big -- to a specific clinic? host: he was referring to lay a clinic. the question is about providers. could you speak to the cost in money given to providers like hospitals. guest: i think most providers, a particular hospitals, have revenue related to medicare reimbursements and medicaid reimbursements. so it is very significant. some might get a third, some might get a half.

in the region i represent, most of the hospitals, half of the revenue relates to federal payments for care, because most people become ill when they're older. there are many people who do not have insurance or cannot afford procedures. so it is about half. that is why when the president talked about reimbursement based on the outcome even making sure payments relate to performance, that is really a measure that can make a difference across the country. for the federal government to be promoting the best operation, the best practices. we also have a situation where has beenal government'

imposing regulations that say you should not be in the hospital over couple of days. some patients have to be in the hospital over that time because they have serious illness and then would be released would -- which would then be released to a nursing home. that made no sense. it was very expensive. statement last night that he was reimbursed based on performance, not on the number of days of this day in hospital. that was an interesting comment. host: the president also talked about manufacturing hubs, creating them across the country. how like those work? -- how might those work? guest: are ready have one in ohio, a youngstown, ohio, which was affected by the outsourcing of media fracturing in this country -- the outsourcing of media pack shrink --

manufactoring the this country. you can literally take a and create an object in 3d through a special type of machine. i have seen it done. it is absolutely amazing. the president was talking about the effort of department of beds and department of energy to bring together the private sector and the need to be its research and develop the product in the mid back drinks sector. i just cheered. those who come from the manufacturing sector of america know that is where you create real wealth. on the agricultural side, think about this. agricultural income is at all- time highs, despite the drought because of the way in which we needed to read it fracturing -- the way in which we needed

manage agriculture in the country. automotive lead hit the skids because we were not manufacturing needs of those come -- and those companies. we have to refinance them. this is a way of leapfrogging technologies in order to move into a 21st century age. i am very anxious to see the details on that. i am glad the president selected the department of defense and department of energy. host: the congress woman is part of the mid back tree caucused and automotive caucus. andanufactoring causuc anucus

automotive caucus. we have spent billions and billions for the war in iraq. so my question is, can we create [indiscernible] host: are you still there? it is a little bit difficult to hear. could you repeat the question. caller: yes. i think the war in iraq was wrong. host: ok. caller: is there any way we can ]reate {indiscernible

fort: i thank issac calling in. the war in iraq was a deep tragedy. the american people were not given the actual facts. there were not weapons of mass destruction found. the calller is correct. i think yes for contingency plan to avoid that kind of terrible -- as the key ask for a contingency plan to avoid the kind of terrible action in the future. -- i think he asked for a contingency plan to avoid the kind of terrible action in the future. i was the one that tried to stop the war, but we were

unsuccessful. now looking back you say how did you know that? what we view is we did not have the evidence for the invasion. what happened was there was a lot of propaganda that occurred at that time. the american people, obviously were put in a very fearful state of mind. you could hear the country move to a state of war, even though the facts were not there because the public wants to defend the country. they were not given pot -- the proper facts. history will record that. i will click to learn from that so that in the future the american people in congress will be more vigilant before we commit our precious men and women in the military to military action. host: patricia and illinois. independent calller. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i felt

the states of the union address was much ado about nothing. president obama is an articulate speaker and has been proven time and time again. however, i am concerned about what i would call the willful this -- deceit by president obama and others who speak of defense cutbacks, wooded fact we have 300 billion that we are allegedly cutting back from the wars in iraq and pakistan is being paid out by the state department as payment for contractors left behind to continue these wars. host: want to thank the calller very much because of what has happened in the past with the particular military engagement. we have to be very clear on where the american people's tax dollars are being spent. she is correct.

the cost of contractors is extraordinary. what i have trouble to i -- travled to iraq and afghanistan and have personally witnessed the presence of contractors verses those of our military. they are very powerful interests. as i said earlier, i am for it sourcing the services back to the department of the feds. they are completely within the control of the secretary of defense and those in charge of the military and the various bridges of the military. we have had many incidents with contractors. they do not operate by the same rules. it creates a real problem. our soldiers know it. i was flying into iraq and the young pilot from ohio was flying

the plane. i said tell me about what you are experiencing over here. he said congress woman get the guys in the back of the plane out of here. what he meant is he was carrying a planeload of soldiers that were contacted on board. they make five times more than he and his colleagues. the cost of it is extraordinary. i am hoping that as we look at where to trim that this will be an area of the defense budget that we can make a real difference in the and in source many of those back into the department of defense itself. i think it is important terms of the national security. host: 1 last phone call for you, congresswoman. caller: my concern is the waste of the va department. what they're having conferences

and everything else in spending millions of dollars. mr. miller has tried to get control of it. i remember him doing -- they have a committee meeting about the $2 million they spent in miami when they just kick people out of the hospital with ptsd. i am a disabled veteran. i lost my house, my car. i have to pay for my medical on outside. in tampa there is over 200 days the hospital goes and bypasses. that means there is no room for you. you have to go on the outside. i have to pay for our own medication because there's no room at a hospital. they have not added one hospital bed since 1974. they have had all these wars and are not taking care of us. they're wasting millions of dollars.

they wonder why the vets are killing themselves. we love our country but do not want to say anything bad. guest: think you for your service to our country, and i am sorry for your injuries. we do have a responsibility. -- thank you for your service. we do have responsibility to the wounded warrior, families, and children. you could certainly call my office, if i could try to help you find your member of congress it to figure out your individual situation. we do this every day. i know the florida because of the number of veterans that have moved to florida is under particular stress. we have put a lot more money into florida. i do not know how your particular region is managed, but the backlog disability claims inside the va is huge. i saw the secretary last night,

the head of the department of veterans affairs, and i know how committed he is removing the backlog and to get these cases resolved. again, i would be happy to put you in touch with the member of congress. i am not sure who it is. call us. we're there for all of your colleagues to observe our country. host: congresswoman marcy kaptur, thank you for talking to us this morning. we now go over to the russell senate office building where we're joined by the top republican on the senate armed services committee. a republican of oklahoma. let's just begin with the headlines in the papers and president obama talked about this in the state of the union address. raising the stakes with the third nuclear test. what should be the policy towards north korea?

host: we have to keep in mind there is a real serious problem. -- guest: we have to keep in mind there is a real serious problem. i can go back to 1998 when they did a multi-stage rocket back then. our intelligence that it would be 15 years before they could do it. our intelligence has always been slow in that we have to demonstrate very clearly that we are quick to keep our nuclear arsenal going, and number two, our missile defense system is in place. i have to be very critical of president obama id that he is -- in that he has decimated the hold the fed system. in the area of nuclear capability, -- remember the conversation with the russian president where he said you could tell putin after i reelected i will have more

latitude to do these things? he is talking about disarmament. i would say the lesson we learned from this is those guys are serious. it is no longer like it was of the cold war where we had the soviet union. they were predictable. now other countries, north korea, syria. so it is very serious. we need to be sure that we're starting to modernize our nuclear arsenal and make sure we get that adequate number of interceptors. one of the things that i am most critical four years ago in the first budget president obama had not only was he disarming

america and doing away with the future combat system, but he took down the ground-based interceptor in poland. we were building that in order to protect america again something coming in from the east coast. the of ground-based interceptors all along the west coast. we do not have any of the other side. if something comes in the other direction, it did my mind i am thinking of iran, because our intelligence shows as the what the capability by 2015, i am not satisfied with the level of protection we have from that end. host: this is one of the reasons you are opposed to the nomination of chuck hagel, right? guest: 0 move it is the club he belongs to. movement is the club

he belongs to. anyone who joined the group is as we want to have a nuclear pre-world sounds so good, but you do not lead by example. you do not say we will do away with ours, because that we don't china, russia, north korea will all the weight with the capabilities. that is one of the objections i have. host: you have said he would wage a filibuster against his nomination. it looks like all 53 democrats plus two independents and two of your colleagues are also willing to support his nomination. that gets into 60. -- him to 60. guest: i am not filibustering. all you have to do is demand a 60 vote margin.

i am doing that. almost all controversial appointments and up for many of them end up with a 60 vote margin. that is what we want. you may be right, they may be right there on 60. if so, you will see a lot of people change boats so they could be on the prevailing side, that is something that is quite common. i of saying with the problems i have with him -- i am saying the problems i have with him, everyone of the republicans voted against his nomination. it is very partially. the problem that many people have is attitude towards israel would use that on all jazeera -- al jazeera and said israel is

guilty of war crimes. host: on afghanistan, the president plans to cut the troop level at a quicker pace out of the country. your reaction. i like to get my reaction from the mid-level officers and enlisted personnel. when i go to of get is that i sit down and talk to these guys. i talk to the captains in the field and commanders. what i would rather he do is not put up a target to ask, to will do and have a budget driven. instead have it driven by the commanders in the field about the risks. i cannot tell you what the risk will be. i do know we need to be taking the information from the commanders in the field.

host: "washington post" said this was the preferred option by the general. guest: you have to look at how many options did the general get to consider? i know general allan and have a great deal of respect for him. keep one thing in mind, he is a soldier. he is military. he works for in salutes the commander in chief. that is what is supposed to be doing. the commander in chief is obama. many of the times when we of a hearing in washington the military will respond -- normally they are massaged pretty well by the commander in chief and a pretty much fortified whenever policy that he has. i think a good example is what happened in thbenghazi. we knew at the time,

unequivocally as the secretary of defense said, on the night of the attack, we knew this was an organized terrorist attack, and yet five days later they come on over tv. this is coming from the president. you have to be careful about this. they are going to reflect his vision. host: of sequestration and cuts to the defense department, automatic cuts, are you willing to agree to a closing corporate loopholes, other tax loopholes in order to avoid the cuts to the military? guest: i know you believe that, otherwise you would not bet -- otherwise you would not have asked the question the way you did. i do not believe that. all these things have the effect of increasing the price of goods

and services that will end up in the public in the public will pay for it. just like the thing on minimum- wage last night. you know who will pay for the minimum wage increase. it will be you, me, and everyone watching this right now. it sounds good. the liberals love to say we have to fraud and -- why did -- expose the views. but it is not. host: hi, sean. republican calller from pennsylvania. caller: my question with the nafta act and a lot of free trade going on, we're supporting the overseas economies that are bolstering that part of the groups over there. the new packaging groups over there to support their

economies. guest: let me first of all say to the calller that i was one of the ones who voted against nafta in 1994. the reason i did is i wanted to be sure that other countries were -- for example, in mexico they had standards of transportation. we have laws in this country that talk about safety standards, talk about all the standards that they did not have to comply with. it was not fair competition. on the other hand in central america i feel differently about that because we are going to be exporting more than we are importing. we'll will have to pick and choose. if you are concerned about moving manufacturing overseas the thing you shouldn't listen to last a close was the

president said we do not care that the congress, house and senate refused to pass a global warming thing, we will deal with regulation. the reason they cannot get the votes to pass that is because that would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of america. that is something -- i calculated that tax to be $3,000 for each family who pays a federal income tax for my state of oklahoma. now, what you get for it? -- what do you get for it? even if you believe that, this would not solve it. lisa jackson, the director of the epa made the statement in response live on tv to my question. it will cost between 300,000,000,400 billion per

year. is this going to reduce co2 emissions? she said it will not. the reason is the problem is not here. it is in china. it is it in india and mexico. there is where you will have a problem with of the effect freebase. they have to go where there is energy. if we curtail energy over here with the text that will reduce the emissions, the mid back tree base will have to go to someplace. host: as many of the members know, james inhofe serving as the top republican on the senate armed services committee. birmingham, alabama. democratic calller. go ahead. caller: my question is i listened to the president last night. with all the things going on board -- with all the things

going on around us with north korea, are we in a position to have a weaker military did what we had in 9/11 or should we have a stronger military? are we able to continue to scatter men all over the country and leave us defenseless at home or should the military continue to be stronger? guest: if they definitely have to be stronger. i am glad you asked that. -- they definitely have to be stronger. i can remember when rumsfeld was up for confirmation. i asked the question, you know the american people expect of their kids are born to be drafted in go off to war that they have the best of everything, and they do not, and people think they do. a good example is back in 1992 i was in the house armed services committee before i came to the senate. there was a witness who said in 10 years we will no longer need ground troops.

i said how you handle this? how you demonstrate we should have the best of everything for our kids what they go to war? he said you have to go back to what we of averaged over the past 100 years. he said we have been spending 5.7% of the gdp on defending america. now he said, if this was back when he was up for confirmation, now it was down to below 4%. now with obama sequestration, it could be 2%. we have to make america strong again. there was a time throughout the history of the country, the number one effort here in the city of washington was to give us the strongest military that any country has, and be able to defend against all contingencies. we do not have that in the war. you are from alabama. ave that not ha

anymore. host: we will go to jack next in minnesota. independent calller. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment from a previous calller and a question for the senator. the calller called just recently saying mayo clinic did not take medicare patients. that is incorrect. now senator, you criticized iran for criticizing israel. i am going to criticize israel. i do not much like the state of israel, and it is not because it is a nation composed of jewish christians. it is because they act unfortunately very much like the nazis did.

they have put settlements in occupied territory, which is absolutely against international law. it is acknowledged as such by some of the leaders of israel. we have also bombed -- they have also bond gods of -- ghaza repeatedly. that is collective punishment, and that is also acknowledge critical action by international law. guest: i have to say that was the most painful 30 seconds i have ever had to sit through to listen to that. the only true, loyal friend we have in the middle east is israel. they are not strictly the beneficiary of our generosity. we are the beneficiary of theirs and many ways. -- in many ways.

all the things going on over there are erupted every day. you cannot just sit back and see what is happening in the middle east and say israel is not our best friend and partner. if something happens over there that we end up in this serious problem, i want them by by side. all i can say is a totally disagree. i know he is well-meeting. he is just absolutely wrong. host: lettered, republican calller from new jersey. -- leonard. caller: my question is about the loans coming from other countries. they borrow money from our country to rebuild their country, it did it high school my teachers at high school said

that a good old as so much money and they never repaid. -- that eaglet owed as so much money and they never paid. -- that england owed us so much money and they'll never repaid. countries have borrow money from us and are not paying it back. instead of taking money out of the u.s. citizens'pockets for all of the cuts, why not go out of the country and collect the debts? >> got your point. never did people say it, and i am sure the calller has heard people say we are borrowing money from china. this is true. this is a serious problem we

have. there are some things we should not be doing overseas. after morsi got into egypt we should not be sending any more f16's into egypt. we do have friends there. i believe the military of egypt is our friend. morsi is not our friend. i have been leading the cause to stop the flow of them into israel. -- into egypt. we do not want to do it in a way that will cost us $2.2 billion, which would come right out of the height of the military. i agree with the calller that there are problems out there. there are some groups i would not want to support. i have opposed it have been opposition in supporting them. we have to recognize who our friends are. we need are close friends. host: this is oversight of gop on twitter.

he says according to the cbo by writing the truth drawdowns into law we save seven or three -- we save 700 billion. why not replace sequestration cuts with this? guest: 15 days from today will set in. two weeks ago when we saw this was coming and obama sequestration would cut into areas, domestic and defense, i am concerned more about the defense end. what i have done is introduce a bill to have it ready in the event this happens. i hope it can be avoided. if 15 days goes by and not avoided, i have already done what the calller is suggesting. i have talked to all five service chiefs, and they have agreed that if we go into this thing, they can take the same top line and spend the same amount of money in sequestration, but rearrange it from within so it is not a cut

across in a way that is very inefficient and will be even more of a disaster. keep in mind, this is a disaster. even the obama-appointed secretary of defense, leon panetta, says this would be a disaster for america. it would be less of a disaster if we did just what the calller is talking about and what i am talking about. host: senator james inhofe, pop -- republican on the senate armed services committee, thank you for spending time with us this morning. we have 10 minutes left before the house comes into session. we will keep taking work home calls and getting reaction to president obama's fourth state of the union address. he spoke with about 6000 words plus. took about an hour. he was interrupted over 70 times with applause. talk about immigration reform, gun laws. talk about foreign policy issues, a climate change.

talk about the effects rehabs across the country. a lot of different proposals put out by the president. we also covered the gop response given by florida republican senator marco rubio and a grant paul. if you miss those, go to our web site at c-span.org. maverick on twitter response to what the senator was just talking about and says we need a modern, efficient military. the cold war is over, our enemies are different. that is what maverick had to say in response to what the senator was talking about. state of the union pacs. 1790-1934 the address was known as the annual message. franklin roosevelt first use the term state of the union in 1934. the opposing party responses we saw last night first began in 1966.

the august address, 27,000 words by william taft in 1910. 79 the george washington gave the shortest, a little over 1000 words. the first radio broadcast was by president coolidge in 1923. first television broadcast president truman in 1947. george w. bush in 2000 to have the first web broadcast. -- 2002 to have the first web broadcast. fred and crystal lake, illinois. democratic calller. you are on the air. what is your reaction to the state of the union address? caller: i am a little disappointed. i thought the state of the union address was more of a campaign effort again. did not hear a real solutions to any of the problems. i did not hear about jobs.

i did not hear anything about -- host: the president did talk about manufacturing as a way to create jobs in this country. greeting partnerships and a new factory hubs. -- creating partnerships and new factory havubs. caller: i just was disappointing -- disappointed. i heard a lot of campaign. i am trying to wrap my brain around the idea that the second amendment says it must be infringed and we got a lot of applause and adding new rules to the sick of it, and it is just really disturbing to me. host: next calller from tennessee. caller: i thought it was another speech about more control and more money for the government. in 2008 a professor at the

university of tennessee wrote a report that said 31,000 signed a petition that there is no scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to global temperature change. this is just the way to get control of our lives. when he got into office gasoline was $1.55 now it is close to $4. who pays for c-span? host: all of you do, the cable watchers. it is brought to you by cable companies and is part of your cable bill. we go to speak next in florida. independent calller. caller: good morning. regarding the state of the union address, president obama failed to fully address how he will specifically solve sequestration. all republicans and democrats,

virtually everyone agrees this system, the sequestration would be a disaster for our u.s. military. i was very disappointed that obama does not seem to be serious about solving this very public -- this very troubling issue. host: a quick update about the senate agenda. a congressional reporter joining us from the russell office building. we talked a little bit about the nomination. what will it come to the floor? >> senator reid once to bring that to a vote this week. -- wants to bring that to a vote this week. it could be longer. a couple of weeks before that happens. but we understand there is still negotiations going on. there is still talks behind the scene. that could happen thursday. host: also, another nominee,

jack lew has his hearing today. what do you expect this editors to talk about it, ask him about? guest: we will see a lot of page rattling, particularly from republicans. a lot of the members see the nomination hearings as an opportunity to really press the administration, question the white house and the policies. even if he is very likely to have his nomination approved, they see this as an opportunity to talk about too big to fail, other issues of monetary problems that the country is facing. they will press him on all those issues in the hearing today. host: when my teeth get a vote on the floor -- when might he get a vote on the floor? guest: it could be the end of

the month before we see his nomination, for the full senate. not expected to be a controversy. not expected to have the kind of delays that hagel could. brennan is another one. they have had a hearing and continue to discuss it. likely if they're able to negotiate something. it is also unlikely to -- likely to take a couple of weeks. host: of the floor this week is that it will put a bill on the floor that would do what? guest: democrats would put together a bill that has have spending cuts and a lot of loophole closings. oil and gas subsidies. likely to see the private jet tax credits come back again. this is an effort to show the other side this is an option. let's talk